What do people think about forests in the EU?
Perceptions of different forest ecosystem services: environmental aspects are considered most important
People living in Europe appreciate forests for the many societal benefits they provide, and literally all of them consume forest-based products ranging from furniture to paper products. However, European citizens appreciate forests the most for their environmental benefits, as indicated in a 2016 Eurobarometer study (European Commission 2016). Several research studies conducted in different countries confirm these findings. Tree planting and protection (Sisak, 2011, Czech Republic), air purification, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration (Lupp et al., 2016, Munich Metropolitan area), biodiversity and mitigating climate change by taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere (Howley et al., 2011, Ireland, similarly Upton et al., 2015) are environmental benefits that are usually ranked first by respondents of perception surveys in Europe (e.g. Paletto et al., 2013 and 2017 for Italy; Dobsinskaand Sarvasova, 2016 for Slovakia; Nordlund et al., 2017 for Sweden and Germany; Varela et al., 2017 for Catalonia; and Ranacher et al., 2017 for Austria, Germany, Finland and Slovenia).
Other studies also find recreational values scoring highly (Lupp et al., 2016; Howley et al., 2011; Paletto et al., 2017; Nordlund et al., 2017; Wippermann and Wippermann, 2010), yet the picture is more mixed when compared to the constantly highly ranked environmental benefits. The economic importance of forests, e.g. provisioning forest ecosystem services such as timber and fuelwood, but also berries and mushrooms is constantly ranked lower in the eyes of citizens in the studies mentioned. The wide range of non-material benefits include also opportunities for tourism, health and wellbeing benefits as well as for nature and aesthetic experiences, spiritual values and cognitive development (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). During the COVID19 pandemic in 2020, recreation opportunities in forests have heavily increased as some studies show (e.g. Derks et al., 2020).
Forest management in Europe is perceived differently
This preference for the environmental benefits of forests also partially translates into the perceptions of forest management in Europe. Monocultures, clearcuts, or other visible signs of timber use are frequently perceived negatively (Gundersen snd Frivold, 2008; Wippermann and Wippermann, 2010; Giergiczny et al., 2015; Huber et al., 2017; Krejčí et al., 2019). Natural looking forests without clear signs of cuttings (Silvennoinen et al., 2002; Tyrväinen et al., 2017), small scale interventions, close to nature and continuous cover forestry are perceived more positively, and interestingly in some cases even more positively than non-management (Paletto et al., 2017). Some regional studies show that citizens are generally satisfied with the management of forests (e.g. Juutinen et al., 2017 for Finland; Mizaras and Mizaraite, 2015 for Lithuania; Lorenz und Elsasser, 2018 for Germany).
Forest management interventions are frequently supported when they relate to mitigating forest risks such as fire or pests (Gutsch et al., 2019 for Germany; Eriksson et al., 2018 for Sweden; Fabra-Crespo et al., 2012 for Spain; Carvalho-Ribeiro et al., 2011 for Portugal); in those cases mechanical interventions (e.g. tree removal) are more supported than the use of pesticides. Information signs explaining the rationale of forest management interventions increase people’s acceptance (Huber et al. 2017). Interestingly, some studies indicate that the season may impact on the perception of forest management patterns (e.g., clear-cut areas being at least moderately suitable for visitors in Finland when covered with snow in winter, Tyrväinen et al., 2017).
Studies point to regional differences regarding the acceptance of different forest management practices. These differences are linked to traditional forests uses across countries and their ecological characteristics that differ from boreal forests in the North to Mediterranean forests in the South. Yet, there is no systematic overview study at the European scale available that investigates such differences.
Mixed forests are preferred everywhere, large dimension trees and deadwood are mostly positively perceived
When asked about their preferences regarding forest structure - mixed and/or multilayered - forest stands are preferred by the majority of respondents (Edwards et al., 2012; Hunziker et al., 2012; Drábková, 2014 for Czech Republic; Almeida et al., 2018 and Arnberger et al., 2018 for Germany; Rambonilaza and Brahic, 2016 for France; Upton et al, 2012 for Ireland; Paletto et al, 2017 for Italy; Giergiczny et al., 2015 for Poland). Some studies do indicate the special importance of old and big dimension trees for recreational purposes (Edwards et al., 2012). Other studies indicate that deadwood (e.g. fallen, old, rotting trunks) as a structural feature of forests with importance for biodiversity is generally being perceived as positive (Drabkova, 2014 for Czech Republic; Hauru et al., 2014 for Finland; Rambonilaza and Brahic, 2016 for France; Pastorella et al., 2016 for Italy and Bosnia), while others show that visitors do on the contrary not appreciate dead or fallen trees (e.g. Gundersen et al., 2017; Gundersen and Frivold, 2008; Tyrväinen et al., 2003).
There are significant differences relating to the perceptions of forest ecosystem services with regard to different societal groups
Differences in the perceptions of forest ecosystem services, forest structures and forest management interventions with regard to the country can be expected and are shown by some comparative studies (Ciesielski and Stereńczak, 2018), but systematic cross-country comparisons are rare. Regional differences can be explained with the varying societal and economic importance of forests uses across countries, and with a historical interaction or co-evolution between people and forest that is unique to a particular region and the traditional livelihoods practiced. The key drivers behind the changing demands towards forests are, however, similar across Europe and include urbanization, decreased dependency of rural livelihoods, ageing and diversifying societies, rising environmental awareness and health and wellbeing trends (Bell et al., 2008; Nilsson et al., 2011; Carrus et al., 2017).
Studies also indicate differences within the same country regarding the perceptions of forests and forest management related to demographic patterns such as age, gender, education, or residency in urban or rural areas. As a rule, younger, female, urban and better educated citizens emphasize the environmental benefits of forests comparatively morethan older, male, rural and less educated citizens (Upton et al., 2012 and 2015; Paletto et al., 2013; Gutsch et al., 2019; Pülzl et al., 2020). Yet, some studies also indicate that younger people attach less value to biodiversity and cultural values of forests than older ones (Paletto et al., 2017), and are less opposed to genetic modifications of trees, at least for forest protection aspects (Hemström et al., 2014 for Sweden; Jepson and Arakelyan, 2017 for the UK).
Studies further indicate that significant differences regarding the perception of forests and forest ecosystem services exist with regard to different social groups or milieus in societies (e.g., Wippermann und Wippermann, 2010 for Germany; Jay and Schraml, 2009 focusing on migrants in Germany; Nijnik et al., 2016 for Scotland). For example, in Italy and Bosnia-Herzegovina, Pastorella et al. (2016) show that 60% of surveyed tourists prefer forests with a high level of naturalness such as unmanaged forests or close-to-nature managed forests, while the remaining 40% prefer forests which are managed in a more intensive way with low amounts of deadwood.
Several studies also indicate partially significant differences in perceptions of forest management between forest owners and the general public, with forest owners being more positive towards timber use and economic values of forests (Howley et al., 2011 for Ireland; Valkeapää and Karppine, 2013 for Finland; Nijnik et al., 2016 for Scotland; Dobsinska and Sarvasova, 2016 for Slovakia) partially ranking them even as first priority compared to recreational and environmental benefits. Other studies however show that environmental and recreational aspects are also a high priority for forest owners (Torralba et al., 2020; Lorenz and Elsasser, 2018), and several studies have distinguished between forest owners with regard to differences over their main emphasis and interests in managing their forests. In Finland, for instance, increased shares of multi-objective or amenity-value-oriented forest owners have been recognized in studies (e.g., Hänninen et al., 2011; Häyrinen 2019). The variety of goals has increased due to urbanization, changing values in society and forest owners’ decreased dependence on forest-based incomes.
Wood is appreciated as a natural renewable material but concerns regarding its environmental sustainability and contribution to climate change mitigation exist
Forest products such as mushrooms and berries are valued by the public but are considered less important than forest environmental benefits (e.g. Stachová, 2018; Sisak, 2011 for Czech Republic; Eriksson et al., 2012 and Goodwin et al., 2019; Nummelin et al., 2017 for Sweden; Almeida et al., 2018; Lupp et al., 2016 for Germany; Paletto et al., 2013 for Italy; Ranacher et al., 2017). Wood and wood products are overall perceived as environmentally friendly, of high quality and healthy in many European countries (Moresova et al., 2019 for Slovakia; Lähtinen et al., 2019 for Finland; Lindberg et al., 2013; Burnard et al., 2015; Costa et al., 2011 for Sweden, Finland, Norway, Slovenia and France). However, positive impacts on global climate, such as the substitution or carbon storage effect are being questioned. This is especially the case for biofuels from forest resources which are positively perceived but their environmental sustainability and contribution to climate change mitigation is scrutinized in Finland, Austria, Germany and Belgium (Halder et al., 2011; Van Dael et al., 2017; Ranacher et al., 2017). While product safety, labour conditions, environmental impacts and the origin of wood are found to be important product attributes, the question remains in how far they influence consumer purchasing decisions (Lähtinen et al., 2019; Costa et al., 2011; Holopainen et al., 2014; Kuzman et al., 2012; Paluš et al., 2012; Švajlenka and Kozlovska, 2018; Toivonen, 2012). In general, higher levels of income, education and prevalence of environmental awareness leads to higher valuation of quality and environmental attributes of wood products positively impacting the purchasing decision (Holopainen et al., 2014; Toivonen, 2012; Halder, 2011; Van Dael et al., 2017; Costa et al., 2011; Osburg et al., 2016).
Some limitations of the evidence presented should be noted. First, while the main trends, e.g. the societal preference for environmental values of forests, are clear and have been identified by many distinct research studies, there are still significant regional differences and which have up to this point not been investigated by a representative European study. The same holds true for differences in preferences between different demographic groups; while regional studies show similar trends regarding e.g. differences in perceptions between younger and older citizens, a European-wide systematic analysis of these differences is lacking. Moreover, monitoring visitor numbers and participation to outdoor recreation and tourism is still rare in many countries, and therefore their demand and importance in forest management may be inadequate. A related interesting question is how societal preferences translate into the concrete appearance of forest management interventions. Apparently, there are trade-offs between societal preferences for environmental ecosystem services and little intervention through forestry, and the demand and appreciation of timber in relation to the bioeconomy. Dealing with those tradeoffs might not be considered by the general public when surveyed, but it is a big concern for forest policy and management. Finally, some studies also point out that a relatively high share of survey respondents feels rather little informed about forests and forestry and related value chains. Noting such limitations, the main lines of societal perceptions towards forests in the EU are clear and it is important to consider them in both forest policy making and concrete forest management in the EU.
Almeida, I., Rösch, C., and Saha, S. (2018). Comparison of ecosystem services from mixed and monospecific forests in Southwest Germany: A survey on public perception. Forests, 9(10). doi:10.3390/f9100627
Arnberger, A., Eder, R., Allex, B., Preisel, H., Ebenberger, M. and Husslein, M. (2018). Trade-offs between wind energy, recreational, and bark-beetle impacts on visual preferences of national park visitors. Land Use Policy, 76, 166–177. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.007
Bell, F. W., Parton, J., Stocker, N., Joyce, D., Reid, D., Wester, M., ... & Towill, B. (2008). Developing a silvicultural framework and definitions for use in forest management planning and practice. The Forestry Chronicle, 84(5), 678-693.
Burnard, M. D., Nyrud, A. Q., Bysheim, K., Kutnar, A., Vahtikari, K. and Hughes, M. (2015). Building material naturalness: Perceptions from Finland, Norway and Slovenia. Indoor and Built Environment, 26(1), 92–107. doi:10.1177/1420326X15605162
Carrus, G., Scopelliti, M., Panno, A., Lafortezza, R., Colangelo, G., Pirchio, S., ... & Sanesi, G. (2017). A different way to stay in touch with ‘urban nature’: The perceived restorative qualities of botanical gardens. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 914.
Carvalho-Ribeiro, S. M. and Lovett, A. (2011). Is an attractive forest also considered well managed? Public preferences for forest cover and stand structure across a rural/urban gradient in northern Portugal. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(1), 46–54. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.09.003
Ciesielski, M. and Stereńczak, K. (2018). What do we expect from forests? The European view of public demands. Journal of Environmental Management, 209, pp. 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.032
Costa, S., Garcia, S. and Ibanez, L. (2011). Do taste and quality perception influence consumer preferences for wood? An econometric model with latent variables. Forest Science, 57(2), 89–101.
Derks, J., Giessen, L., & Winkel, G. (2020). COVID-19-induced visitor boom reveals the importance of forests as critical infrastructure. Forest Policy and Economics, 118, 102253.
Dobsinska, Z., and Sarvasova, Z. (2016). Perceptions of forest owners and the general public on the role of forests in Slovakia. Acta Silvatica et Lignaria Hungarica, 12(1), 23–34. doi:10.1515/aslh-2016-0003
Drábková, A. (2014). Opinions and preferences of forest visitors to the Protected Landscape Area Blaník. Scientia Agriculturae Bohemica, 45(2), 110–116. doi:10.7160/ sab.2014.450206
Edwards, D., Jay, M., Jensen, F.S., Lucas, B., Marzano, M., Montagné, C., Peace, A., Weiss, G., 2012. Public preferences for structural attributes of forests: Towards a pan-European perspective. Forst Policy and Economics 19, 12-19.
Eriksson, L., Nordlund, A., Olsson, O. and Westin, K. (2012). Beliefs about urban fringe forests among urban residents in Sweden. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 11(3), 321–328. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2012.02.004
Eriksson, L., Björkman, C. and Klapwijk, M. J. (2018). General public acceptance of forest risk management strategies in Sweden: Comparing three approaches to acceptability. Environment and Behavior, 50(2), 159–186. doi:10.1177/0013916517691325
European Commisson (2016). Special Eurobarometer 440: Europeans, Agriculture and the CAP. Available under https://data.europa.eu/euodp/de/data/dataset/S2087_84_2_440_ENG [last accessed May 29th 2020]
Fabra-Crespo, M., Mola-Yudego, B., Gritten, D. and RojasBriales, E. (2012). Public perception on forestry issues in the region of Valencia (Eastern Spain): Diverging from policy makers? Forest Systems, 21(1), 99–100. doi:10.5424/ fs/2112211-11309
Giergiczny, M., Czajkowski, M., Zylicz, T. and Angelstam, P. (2015). Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes. Ecological Economics, 119, 8–23. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.032
Goodwin, S., Brogaard, S. and Krause, T. (2019). Values held by Swedish primary school students towards forest ecosystems and the relevance for a nature’s contributions to people approach. Ecosystems and People, 15(1), 331–346. do i:10.1080/26395916.2019.1687585
Gundersen V., Frivold L. (2008). Public preferences for forest structures: A review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 7: 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2008.05.001
Gundersen, V., Stange, E. E., Kaltenborn, B. P., & Vistad, O. I. (2017). Public visual preferences for dead wood in natural boreal forests: The effects of added information. Landscape and Urban Planning, 158, 12-24.
Gutsch, M., Larondelle, N. and Haase, D. (2019). Of bugs and men: How forest pests and their management strategies are perceived by visitors of an urban forest. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 41, 248–254. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2019.03.003
Halder, P., Havu-Nuutinen, S., Pietarinen, J. and Pelkonen, P. (2011). Bio-energy and youth: Analyzing the role of school, home, and media from the future policy perspectives. Applied Energy, 88(4), 1233–1240. doi:10.1016/j. apenergy.2010.10.017
Hänninen, H., Karppinen, H., Leppänen, J. (2011). Finnish Forest Owner 2010. (In Finnish) Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute (2011) 208. 94 p. http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp208.htm
Hauru, K., Koskinen, S., Kotze, D. J. and Lehvävirta, S. (2014). The effects of decaying logs on the aesthetic experience and acceptability of urban forests - Implications for forest management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 123, 114–123. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.12.014
Häyrinen, L. (2019) Finnish Forest Owner Objectives As Indicators for a Diversifying Use of Forests on the Road to a Bioeconomy (2019), 10.14214/df.280
Hemström, K., Mahapatra, K. and Gustavsson, L. (2014). Public perceptions and acceptance of intensive forestry in Sweden. Ambio, 43(2), 196–206. doi:10.1007/s13280-013- 0411-9
Holopainen, J. M., Häyrinen, L. and Toppinen, A. (2014). Consumer value dimensions for sustainable wood products: Results from the Finnish retail sector. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29(4), 378–385. doi:10.1080/02827581.201 4.925138
Howley, P., Ryan, M., and Donoghue, C. O. (2011). Forestry in Ireland: An examination of individuals’ preferences and attitudes towards the non-market benefits of forests. Irish Geography, 44(2-3), 291–302. doi:10.1080/00750778.2011.6 43392
Huber, J., Ranacher, L., Stern, T. and Schwarzbauer, P. (2017). Forest management or greed of gain?—An information experiment on peri-urban forest visitors’ attitudes regarding harvesting operations. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 27, 214–220. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2017.08.005
Hunziker, M., von Lindern, E., Bauer, N., Frick, J. (2012). Das Verhältnis der Schweizer Bevölkerung zum Wald: Waldmonitoring soziokultu-rell: Weiterentwicklung und zweite Erhebung-WaMos 2. Eidg. Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft WSL.
Jay, M., & Schraml, U. (2009). Understanding the role of urban forests for migrants–uses, perception and integrative potential. Urban forestry & urban greening, 8(4), 283-294.
Jepson, P. and Arakelyan, I. (2017b). Exploring public perceptions of solutions to tree diseases in the UK: Implications for policy-makers. Environmental Science and Policy, 76, 70–77. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.06.008
Juutinen, A., Kosenius, A. K., Ovaskainen, V., Tolvanen, A. and Tyrväinen, L. (2017). Heterogeneous preferences for recreation-oriented management in commercial forests: the role of citizens’ socioeconomic characteristics and recreational profiles. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(3), 399–418. doi:10.1080/09640568.2016.1159546
Krejčí, H., Stárová, M., Hrbek, I., Navrátilová, M. and Beranová, M. (2019). The perception of forests by the Czech Republic general public. Journal of Forest Science, 65(6), 226–233. doi:10.17221/138/2018-JFS
Kuzman, M. K., Motik, D., Bičanić, K., Vlosky, R. P. and Oblak, L. (2012). A comparative analysis of consumer attitudes on the use of wood products in Slovenia and Croatia. Drvna Industrija, 63(2), 71–79. doi:10.5552/drind.2012.1129
Lähtinen, K., Harju, C. and Toppinen, A. (2019). Consumers’ perceptions on the properties of wood affecting their willingness to live in and prejudices against houses made of timber. Wood Material Science and Engineering, 14(5), 325–331. doi:10.1080/17480272.2019.1615548
Lindberg, S., Roos, A., Kihlstedt, A. and Lindström, M. (2013). A product semantic study of the influence of the sense of touch on the evaluation of wood-based materials. Materials and Design, 52, 300–307. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2013.05.069
Lorenz, M., & Elsasser, P. (2018). Views and attitudes about forests and forestry in Germany. Allgemeine Forst-und Jagdzeitung, 189(1/2), 1-15.
Lupp, G., Förster, B., Kantelberg, V., Markmann, T., Naumann, J., Honert, C., . . . Pauleit, S. (2016). Assessing the recreation value of urban woodland using the ecosystem service approach in two forests in the munich metropolitan region. Sustainability (Switzerland), 8(11). doi:10.3390/su8111156
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005: Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends. The millennium ecosystem assessment series. ISBN 1-55963-227-5
Mizaras, S. and Mizaraitė, D. (2015). Integrated economic and social approaches for the evaluation of forest management sustainability: The case of Lithuania. Baltic Forestry, 21(1), 96–105.
Moresová, M., Sedliačiková, M., Štefko, J. and Benčiková, D. (2019). Perception of wooden houses in the Slovak republic. Acta Facultatis Xylologiae Zvolen, 61(2), 121–135. doi:10.17423/afx.2019.61.2.12
Nijnik, M., Nijnik, A. and Brown, I. (2016). Exploring the linkages between multifunctional forestry goals and the legacy of spruce plantations in Scotland. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 46(10), 1247–1254. doi:10.1139/cjfr-2015-0399
Nilsson, K., Sangster, M., Gallis, C., Hartig, T., de Vries, S., Seeland, K., Schipperijn, J. (Eds.), (2011): Forests, Trees and Human Health. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9806-1
Nordlund, A., Schenk, T. and Westin, K. (2017). Forest Beliefs in an Urbanizing World: Views on and Usage of Forest Areas Among Persons with and Without a Migration Biography in Germany and Sweden. Society and Natural Resources, 30(2), 160–176. doi:10.1080/08941920.2016.1238988
Nummelin, T., Widmark, C., Riala, M., Sténs, A., Nordström, E. M. and Nordin, A. (2017). Forest future s by Swedish students– developing a mind mapping method for data collection. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 32(8), 807–817. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2017.1287303
Osburg, V. S., Strack, M., & Toporowski, W. (2016). Consumer acceptance of Wood-Polymer Composites: A conjoint analytical approach with a focus on innovative and environmentally concerned consumers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 110, 180-190. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.086
Paletto, A., De Meo, I., Cantiani, M. G., & Maino, F. (2013). Social perceptions and forest management strategies in an Italian alpine community. Mountain Research and Development, 33(2), 152-160. doi:10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-12-00115.1
Paletto, A., Guerrini, S. and De Meo, I. (2017). Exploring visitors’ perceptions of silvicultural treatments to increase the destination attractiveness of peri-urban forests: A case study in Tuscany Region (Italy). Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 27, 314–323. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2017.06.020
Paluš, H., Mat’ová, H. and Kaputa, V. (2012). Consumer preferences for joinery products and furniture in Slovakia and Poland. Acta Facultatis Xylologiae, 54(2), 123–132.
Pastorella, F., Avdagić, A., Čabaravdić, A., Mraković, A., Osmanović, M. and Paletto, A. (2016). Tourists’ perception of deadwood in mountain forests. Annals of Forest Research, 59(2), 311–326. doi:10.15287/afr.2016.482
Pülzl, H., Aggestam, F., Pecurul-Botines, M., Lukina, N. V. , Sotirov, M., Tebenkova, D., Widmark, C. and Rosinger, C. (2020) How do citizens perceive and value forest ecosystem services in the European Union and Russia. POLYFORES Policy Brief WP3-01.
Rambonilaza, T. and Brahic, E. (2016). Non-market values of forest biodiversity and the impact of informing the general public: Insights from generalized multinomial logit estimations. Environmental Science and Policy, 64, 93–100. doi:10.1016/j. envsci.2016.06.008
Ranacher, L., Lähtinen, K., Järvinen, E. and Toppinen, A. (2017a). Perceptions of the general public on forest sector responsibility: A survey related to ecosystem services and forest sector business impacts in four European countries. Forest Policy and Economics, 78, 180–189. doi:10.1016/j. forpol.2017.01.016
Silvennoinen, H., Pukkala, T., Tahvanainen, L., 2002. Effect of cuttings on the scenic beauty of a tree stand. Scand. J. For. Res. 17, 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/028275802753742936
Šišák, L. (2011). Forest visitors’ opinions on the importance of forest operations, forest functions and sources of their financing. Journal of Forest Science, 57(6), 266–270.
Stachová, J. (2018). Forests in the Czech public discourse. Journal of Landscape Ecology(Czech Republic), 11(3), 33–44. doi:10.2478/jlecol-2018-0011
Švajlenka, J. and Kozlovská, M. (2018b). Quality parameters perception of modern methods of construction based on wood in the context of sustainability. Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering, 62(3). doi:10.3311/PPci.11224
Toivonen, R. M. (2012). Product quality and value from consumer perspective-An application to wooden products. Journal of Forest Economics, 18(2), 157–173. doi:10.1016/j. jfe.2011.12.004
Torralba, M.; Lovric, M.; Roux, J.L.; Budniok, M.A.; Mulier, A.S.; Winkel, G.; Plieninger, T. (2020): Examining the relevance of cultural ecosystem services in forest management in Europe. Ecology and Society 25(3):2 https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11587-250302.
Tyrväinen, L. Silvennoinen, H. and Kolehmainen O. 2003. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 135-149(15).
Tyrväinen, L., Silvennoinen, H., & Hallikainen, V. 2017. Effect of the season and forest management on the quality of the tourism environment: Case from Finnish Lapland. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 32 4 : 349-359.
Upton, V., Dhubháin, A. N. & Bullock, C. (2012). Preferences and values for afforestation: The effects of location and respondent understanding on forest attributes in a labelled choice experiment. Forest Policy and Economics, 23, 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2012.06.006
Upton, V., Dhubháin, Á. N. and Bullock, C. (2015). Are Forest Attitudes Shaped by the Extent and Characteristics of Forests in the Local Landscape? Society and Natural Resources, 28(6), 641–656. doi:10.1080/08941920.2014.933925
Valkeapää, A. and Karppinen, H. (2013). Citizens’ view of legitimacy in the context of Finnish forest policy. Forest Policy and Economics, 28, 52–59. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2013.01.004
Van Dael, M., Lizin, S., Swinnen, G. and Van Passel, S. (2017). Young people’s acceptance of bioenergy and the influence of attitude strength on information provision. Renewable Energy, 107, 417–430. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2017.02.010
Varela, E., Jacobsen, J. B. and Mavsar, R. (2017). Social demand for multiple benefits provided by Aleppo pine forest management in Catalonia, Spain. Regional Environmental Change, 17(2), 539–550. doi:10.1007/s10113-016-1038-8
Wippermann, C., & Wippermann, K. (2010). Mensch und Wald: Einstellungen der Deutschen zum Wald und zur nachhaltigen Waldwirtschaft. wbv.